Summa summae S. Thomae, Tomus II

[Although the University of Paris, under Scotus as leader, had embraced the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception when the Subtle Doctor departed this life in the year 1308, John of Montesono, a doctor of theology of the Order of Preachers, openly and keenly attacked that opinion in the year 1387. The holy Synod did not wish to spend time upon things which the circumstances of the times did not altogether require, and since elsewhere several Fathers, though far fewer in number, did not admit Mary's privilege, lest it condemn them positively it issued, in sess. V, the declaration to be cited below, by which it certified that « the blessed and immaculate Virgin is not comprehended in the decree on original sin. » By this declaration the contest was not put to rest, most Dominicans defending the opinion of John of Montesono and the Jansenist writers — among whom John Launoi stands out — afterwards applauding them, although the Roman Church, more inclined toward the opinion of the Immaculate Conception, openly favored it. These men, distinguishing between the first instant of the blessed Virgin's conception and her animation, contended that Mary contracted original sin in her very conception, but they conceded that she was purified from this stain after animation, as is read in the Office of the Sanctification of B. M. V. in the Dominican Breviary published at Venice in 1547; which is against the true doctrine of the infusion of the soul into the human body, which we established in the dissertation De homine.

On the other side, among the theologians who defended the glory of the Immaculate One, some — otherwise men of good name — judged that God had decreed to endow her with so great a privilege even before his foreknowledge both of original sin and of the incarnation of the Word, and therefore independently of the most sublime dignity to which she was to be raised by the title of divine maternity. These men, wise not unto sobriety, did not sufficiently consider that all propagated seminally from Adam sinned in him, as the Apostle teaches, Rom., v, 12, and consequently that all stood in need of the redemption that is through Christ: whence they ought to have concluded that blessed Mary the Virgin was not immune from the obligation of contracting original sin, and could not be preserved from that stain except, as is said in the bull of definition soon to be cited, « by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, in view of the merits of Christ Jesus the Savior of the human race. » Otherwise Christ would not be the universal Redeemer of the whole human race, nor would he have died for all men; which cannot be maintained saving the faith.

Therefore against the aforementioned, respectively

I say: The most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her Conception, was, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, in view of the merits of Christ Jesus the Savior of the human race, preserved immune from every stain of original guilt.

1° It is of faith. Before this truth was dogmatically defined in these latest times, it was always the settled conviction in the Church of God that the Mother of God was, by a singular privilege, entirely immune from every sin, whether actual or original. For we read in the bull Ineffabilis Deus:

« Which original innocence of the most august Virgin, wholly coherent with her admirable holiness and her pre-eminent dignity as Mother of God, the Catholic Church — taught by the Holy Spirit who is the column and firmament of truth — possessing as doctrine divinely received and comprehended in the deposit of heavenly revelation, has never ceased continually to expound, propose and foster ever more from day to day in manifold ways and with splendid deeds. »

For many declarations of the Holy See and other dogmatic acts of the greatest moment, which were the precursors of the formal definition, clearly show what has always been the doctrine of the Church concerning the Immaculate Conception of B. M. V., the Mother of God.

The Council of Trent, after the celebrated decree on original sin issued in session V, adds: « This holy Synod declares nevertheless that it is not its intention to comprehend in this decree, where original sin is treated of, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, Mother of God; but that the constitutions of Sixtus IV, of happy memory, are to be observed, under the penalties contained in those constitutions which it renews. » And the council openly professed its true opinion by commanding that on the feast of the Conception there be celebrated, in the presence of the Fathers, the Mass approved by Sixtus IV, with the prayer: Deus, qui per Immaculatam Virginis Conceptionem, etc., which is recited in the most recent Office and Mass.

This Mass, with the corresponding office, was in use from the year 1476 to the year 1568, and then in the new Breviary this office gave way to the office of the Nativity, only the name being changed.

Sixtus IV, in the constitution Grave nimis, given on the day before the nones of September 1483, had declared indeed that it could be freely disputed whether B. V. Mary was immaculate in her very conception; but under the gravest penalties he had forbidden anyone to accuse of heresy and even of error « those who held that the soul of B. M. V., in the first instant of its creation and infusion into the body, in view of the merits of the Son of God our Redeemer, had been preserved and kept immune from the stain of original sin, and who in this sense venerated and celebrated her feast with solemn rite. » Which constitution was renewed by Alexander VII on December 8, 1661.

Whence St. Pius V, in the constitution Ex omnibus afflictionibus, given October 1, 1567, condemned the following proposition, which is the 73rd among the Baian propositions: « No one besides Christ is without original sin. Hence the B. Virgin died on account of sin contracted from Adam, and all her afflictions in this life, like those of other just men, were punishments for actual or original sin. »

To foster and increase the devotion of the faithful toward the singular privilege of the Mother of God, several Pontiffs approved the erection of many monasteries, churches and confraternities under the title of the Immaculate Conception of B. M. V., and granted indulgences to those who recited certain prayers in honor of the Virgin Immaculate. Among them Gregory XV, on April 13, 1621, enriched with a partial indulgence the recitation of the invocation: Benedicta sit purissima et immaculata Conceptio B. M. V. Which concession was renewed by Urban VIII on November 18, 1623.

Because, from the oft-praised saying of Pope St. Celestine, « the law of praying establishes the law of believing, » what is expressly enunciated in the sacred liturgy must be held as pertaining to the genuine doctrine of the Church. For the Church of God can no more profess error than define error juridically as truth. Moreover, in her liturgy the Roman Church for several centuries has professed that B. M. V. was immaculate in her Conception. Therefore she has certified that this doctrine is her own, that is, that it is contained in the deposit of sacred revelation.

Before the profession of this truth appears clearly in the Roman liturgy and the particular liturgies of the Western churches, it is found in the most ancient and primitive Eastern liturgies. In the liturgy bearing the name of St. John Chrysostom, the most blessed Virgin is praised as most holy, undefiled, unspotted, blessed above all. She is celebrated with the same praises in the liturgy ascribed to St. Basil the Great, which, as Peter the Deacon relates — who wrote in the VI century — was in use in nearly all the churches of the East. The liturgy attributed to St. Mark decrees the same praise to the Mother of God. The liturgy of St. James, first bishop of Jerusalem, makes commemoration of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, as most holy, unspotted, Immaculate, blessed above all, ever-blessed, blameless in every way, more honorable than the cherubim and more glorious than the seraphim. Not unlike do the other liturgies of those same times speak.

If it be objected that the aforementioned liturgies, which are called apostolic, are later than the Apostles, since before the V century no mention of them is found, it must be answered: 1° Even if they were certainly not older than the V century, nevertheless from them one discerns what truths the various churches professed; for new dogmas could not have been introduced into them without anyone protesting. 2° It is established that no liturgy, except perhaps that found in the apostolic Constitutions, was committed to writing before the V century, on account of the discipline of the secret, which did not allow the sacred mysteries to be revealed except to the initiated. In the time of St. Augustine the Apostles' Creed was not yet written down, as he himself testifies, chapter 1 de Symbolo ad catechumenos, n. 1¹. Can then the authenticity of this rule of faith be denied? The same must be said of the liturgies.

In the West, the feast of the Conception of B. M. V. is already celebrated in various churches from the XI century onward. It is found instituted in the diocese of Cremona in the year 1047; in Bayeux, 1070. Celebrated is the letter by which, about the year 1140, St. Bernard keenly rebuked the canons of Lyons, who had determined to institute the feast of Mary's Conception, saying that this feast was new (although it was already celebrated elsewhere), rested on no legitimate foundation, and ought not to have been instituted without consulting the Apostolic See. He declared nevertheless that he reserved his opinion « especially to the authority and examination of the Roman Church. »

St. Anselm had instituted this feast in his church of Canterbury in the year 1109. Notwithstanding the vehement opposition of St. Bernard, it is admitted by several churches of France in the year 1198. Thence it passes into the neighboring regions, and is celebrated in the diocese of Paderborn in the year 1343; in Münster, 1350; in Strasbourg, 1364; in Seville, 1369; in Tarragona, 1378.

The Roman Church in no way disapproved of the desire and counsel of the particular churches: which surely she would not have failed to do, if their piety had erred in this. Nay, the supreme Pontiffs themselves expressly approved this devotion, and judged that it should be propagated by public worship.

For Sixtus IV, on the third of the calends of May 1476, decrees that this feast is to be celebrated at Rome with an office and Mass whose prayer was: Deus, qui per Immaculatam Virginis Conceptionem, etc. Which Mass, as we said, was afterward celebrated in the presence of the Tridentine Fathers.

Paul III, July 3, 1536(?), approves the Breviary elaborated by cardinal Quignon, with the office of the Conception, in which the Invitatory of Matins was: Immaculatam Conceptionem Virginis Maria celebremus, etc. The same pope, on September 16, 1549, approved the Roman Missal containing the Mass of this mystery with the aforesaid prayer.

Paul V, on the fifth of the ides of March 1606, grants to the Order of Minors Observant, on each Saturday not impeded, the recitation of the office of the Immaculate Conception beginning Sicut cedrus, which was again approved by Pius IX and granted to the whole Church.

Several Pontiffs afterward grant the same office and the same Mass to various orders: among them Clement IX, on September 27, 1667, to the Society of Jesus, with an octave; on October 31 of the same year, to the whole order of Hermits of St. Augustine. By the same pope it is granted, on October 21 of the same year, to all dwelling in Roman territory, and on February 8 to the diocese of Modena.

Innocent XI, on December 18, 1678, approves and enriches with an indulgence the little office of the Immaculate Conception, to be recited in various congregations of B. M. V., « which, says the Pontiff, is recited in the Church by permission of the Holy See from most ancient times. »

Innocent XII, on May 15, 1693, extends the feast of the Conception, with an octave, to the universal Church. If it be objected that the Conception of the Mother of God is not expressly called immaculate in this office, it must be answered: 1° It was enacted in the Missal of St. Pius V that this feast should be celebrated with the office and Mass of her Nativity, only the name being changed. 2° St. Thomas says of the Nativity of B. M. V., IIIa p., q. 27, a. 1, in arg. Sed contra: « The Church celebrates the Nativity of the blessed Virgin. But a feast is not celebrated in the Church except for some saint. Therefore the blessed Virgin was holy in her very Nativity. » This argument is deservedly employed in favor of the Conception of the same Virgin. And indeed by the very fact that it is prescribed that the Conception and the Nativity of Mary are to be celebrated with the same office and the same Mass, each mystery is declared equally worthy and holy. Moreover the Conception would not have been holy, and therefore most worthy, unless it had been immaculate; and under no other title could it be offered to the piety of the faithful as an object of public worship.

Clement XI, on December 6, 1708, decrees that this feast is to be kept under obligation of precept, and grants afterward, on May 25, 1712, that the title Immaculate be added not only to the Virgin herself, but to her Conception.

By these and many other things, which we omit here for brevity's sake — « the responses, constitutions, [decrees] of the supreme Pontiffs » — she had come to be venerated and celebrated as immaculate. Moved by which things Benedict XIV had ordered prepared a draft of a dogmatic constitution on the immaculate Conception of the Mother of God, for the defining of this truth as of faith. Why, by a most wise counsel of God, this most learned Pontiff did not promulgate this definition, it is not for us to inquire.

From every side bishops, carrying up the votes of the faithful to the Apostolic See, demanded more urgently that the wonderful and unique privilege of the immaculate Mother of God be defined dogmatically; and meanwhile they asked for and obtained that there be permitted to be added to the Litany of Loreto this new invocation: Queen conceived without original stain, pray for us; and to the preface of the Mass of the Conception of B. V. the word Immaculate.

Wishing to satisfy these prayers, Pius IX, exiled from Rome by the Gaetani « most turbulent storm of evils », directed on February 2, 1849 to the bishops of the whole Catholic world the encyclical letter Ubi primum, in which is read: « We earnestly desire that you signify to us with all possible speed with what devotion your clergy and faithful people are animated toward the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin, and with what desire they burn that such a matter be decreed by the Apostolic See; and above all we desire most especially to know what you yourselves, venerable Brothers, think of the matter itself, in your eminent wisdom, and what advantage the Roman clergy already enjoys in consequence thereof, without having to implore such a favor from the Holy See. »

Six hundred and sixty-five bishops signified their testimony and votes to the supreme Pontiff in their replies. « These same, as Pius IX says in his decretorial constitution, replying to us with incredible joy, gladness and zeal, not only renewed again their own particular devotion and disposition of mind, and that of the clergy and faithful people of each, toward the Immaculate Conception of the most blessed Virgin, but also demanded of us, as it were with common voice, that the Immaculate Conception of that same Virgin should be defined by our supreme judgment and authority. » Only certain bishops, and these very few in number, while attesting the most ancient devotion of their churches toward the Immaculate Virgin, and professing themselves to venerate the most august Virgin as Immaculate and altogether exempt from the original stain, judged that, on account of the circumstances of present things, this truth was not yet opportunely to be defined as of faith.

Finally, after taking counsel anew with one hundred ninety-two cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops and bishops summoned from all parts of the Catholic world and present at Rome, Pius IX, surrounded by this most ample and illustrious senate, on the very feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God, in the year 1854, promulgated in the Vatican basilica the dogmatic constitution beginning Ineffabilis Deus, which, after a most abundant exposition of the doctrine itself and an enumeration of the principal facts demonstrating the constant devotion of the Christian people toward this mystery, he concluded thus:

« For the honor of the holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and ornament of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian religion, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and of our own, we declare, pronounce and define: the doctrine which holds that the most blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her Conception, was preserved immune from every stain of original guilt, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, in view of the merits of Christ Jesus the Savior of the human race, is revealed by God, and therefore is to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful. Wherefore, if any shall have presumed to think in their heart otherwise than has been defined by us — which God avert — let them know and understand that they are condemned by their own judgment, have suffered shipwreck concerning the faith, and have fallen away from the unity of the Church, and that by the very fact they subject themselves to the penalties established by law, if they shall have dared to signify what they feel in their heart by word, in writing, or by any other external manner whatsoever. »

This decree was everywhere hailed with incredible joy by the faithful peoples, who, together with their bishops publishing the definition, cried out eagerly: Peter has spoken through the mouth of Pius IX. Rome has spoken, the cause is finished.

2° It is proved from Sacred Scripture. Gen., III, 14 and 15. After Adam's fall, promising man a repairer and redeemer to be born of the new Eve, that is, of Mary, the Lord says to the serpent.... I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed. She shall crush thy head. The holy Fathers unanimously taught that this woman who crushed the head of the serpent, or of the devil, is none other than the future mother of the Redeemer. Yet unless B. Mary, the mother of Christ, had been in her conception entirely immune from the stain of original sin, she did not truly crush the head of the serpent, whose dominion she was on the contrary first made subject to, made his bondswoman for some time. Therefore in her conception she was immaculate.

After the promise come the figures. All things that pertain to the mystery of the redemption of the human race had to be prefigured, and it was fitting that among the prophetic symbols some should announce and depict the future mother of the Savior. Therefore the sanctity of her conception ought to have been expressed symbolically. And that it was so done is established from the dogmatic constitution Ineffabilis Deus, in which the ancient figures of this mystery are not only enumerated but explained according to tradition, in this manner: « Now those same Fathers saw the eminent and singular triumph of the Virgin, and her most excellent innocence, purity, holiness, and her integrity free from every stain of sin, and the ineffable abundance and magnitude of all heavenly graces, virtues and privileges, at one time in the Ark of Noah, which, constituted by God, escaped quite safe and sound from the common shipwreck of the whole world; at another in that Ladder which Jacob saw reaching from earth even to heaven, on whose steps the angels of God ascended and descended, and upon whose top the Lord himself leaned; then again in that Bush which Moses saw burning on every side in a holy place amid the crackling flames of fire, yet not consumed or suffering the least loss, but beautifully green and flowering; then in that impregnable Tower facing the enemy, from which hang a thousand shields and all the armor of the strong; then in that enclosed Garden which knows not how to be violated or corrupted by any deceits of snares; then in that resplendent City of God whose foundations are in the holy mountains; then in that most august Temple of God which, shining with divine splendors, is full of the glory of the Lord; then in other figures of the same kind altogether very many, by which the sublime dignity of the Mother of God, her unsullied innocence, and her holiness liable to no stain whatever had been signally foretold, as the Fathers delivered.

» To describe this same integrity of the Virgin, of whom Jesus was born, as it were the sum and original [store] of divine gifts, those same men, employing also the words of the Prophets, celebrated the august Virgin no otherwise, namely as a Dove pure and holy, as Jerusalem, as the lofty Throne of God, and the Ark of sanctification, and the House which eternal wisdom will build for itself, and that Queen who, flowing with delights and leaning upon her Beloved, came forth from the mouth of the Most High altogether perfect, beautiful, and wholly dear to God, never spotted with any stain of defilement. »

To these are added those words applied to the Virgin in the sacred liturgy from the Canticle of canticles as to a spouse: ⟨Cant., II, 10 : Arise, my love, my spouse⟩, ⟨...⟩ among the daughters; ibid., IV, 7 : Thou art all fair, my love, and there is not a spot in thee; ibid., VI, 9 : Who is she that goeth forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, chosen as the sun?

The Gospel accords with the Old Scripture, describing the reality prefigured. Mary, even before the consummation of the mystery of the incarnation, is greeted by the angel as full of grace, Luc., I, 28, that is, laden with all the graces with which God can enrich any creature: which plenitude necessarily includes, as its principle, the singular sanctity of her conception. Whence there is added in the aforesaid bull: « But whereas those same Fathers and writers of the Church pondered in mind and heart that the most blessed Virgin, when the angel Gabriel announced to her her most sublime dignity as Mother of God, was named full of grace by the name and command of God himself, they taught that by this singular and solemn salutation, never heard elsewhere, it was shown that the Mother of God was the seat of all divine graces, adorned with all the charisms of the divine Spirit, nay more, the well-nigh infinite treasury and inexhaustible abyss of those same charisms, so that, never liable to malediction, and partaker with her Son of perpetual blessing, she merited to hear, moved by the divine Spirit, from Elizabeth: Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. »

What could be wished more explicit in the sacred writings for proving, by divine authority, that the conception of the blessed Virgin Mary was altogether untouched and wholly immune from the original stain?

3° It is proved from tradition. Beyond measure would grow the heap of testimonies if, besides the acts of the Holy See related above, we attempted to transcribe either the decrees of particular councils, or the professions of universities and ecclesiastical writers, or the eulogies of the holy Fathers, which affirm, demonstrate and extol the purity and sanctity of the Immaculate Virgin in her very Conception. Let it suffice briefly to indicate certain ones.

All the provincial synods of the current century have testified their adherence to this doctrine, requesting that this truth be at length defined by the Apostolic See as of faith. The councils of the XVI and XV centuries vindicating the privilege of the Mother of God prescribed that the decree of Sixtus IV be observed; and at those same times fifty universities and more, in all parts of the Christian world, solemnly adhered to this opinion, many of which, like the University of Paris in the year 1496, enacted « that no one henceforth be inscribed in this our sacred college unless he profess under oath that he will always, according to his powers, be an assertor of this religious doctrine and its strenuous champion. »

In the year 1222, the Council of Oxford, to commend devotion toward the Immaculate Conception of B. M. V., commemorates the feast of this mystery, instituted by St. Anselm, as already celebrated from that time throughout the whole province of Canterbury. There is read in the acts of the Council of Frankfort, 794: « But we wish also to hear this from you, whether Adam, the first father of the human race, who was born of virgin earth, was created free or a servant. If a servant, how then the image of God? If free, why also was not Christ likewise free-born of a Virgin? Man was indeed made of better earth, even animated and immaculate, the Holy Spirit operating. »

According to the second Council of Nicaea, the seventh general council, there was approved the synodal letter of Theodore, patriarch of Jerusalem, in which he had written: « Who is truly the Mother of God, and a virgin before childbirth and after childbirth, and created higher than the glory and splendor of all intelligible and sensible nature. » But how was she created higher than the very intelligible natures, that is, the angels, if she was defiled with the original stain in her Conception or creation? The Third Council of Constantinople, the sixth general council, 680, had approved another synodal letter of St. Sophronius, likewise patriarch of Jerusalem, professing that the Son of God became incarnate in the womb of « Mary, holy, honorable and divine, and free from all defilement. » He is that Sophronius whose sermon, in which the perfect sanctity of the blessed Virgin is extolled, was inserted into the new office of the Immaculate Conception. The Lateran Council, convened under Martin I in the year 649, calls the Mother of Christ « holy and ever Virgin, and Immaculate. »

Innumerable texts exist of the writers of these times which celebrate the perfect sanctity of the Mother of God and even expressly affirm that her Conception was immune from every stain. Since it is impossible even to inscribe their names here, let our Angelic Doctor speak in behalf of all, who says, In I Sentent., dist. 44, q. 1, a. 3, ad 3: « Purity is increased by withdrawal from its contrary, and therefore there can be found a creature than which nothing purer could exist among created things, if it were infected by no contagion of sin. And such was the purity of the blessed Virgin, who was immune from original and actual sin. » Below we shall examine whether the contrary texts attributed to the same Doctor are genuine.

Constrained by the narrowness of space, we shall relate only certain testimonies of the Fathers, and especially the older ones. St. Augustine, de Natura et gratia, c. 36, n. 42: « Excepting the holy Virgin Mary, of whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I will to have no question whatsoever when sins are spoken of: for how do we know what greater measure of grace was conferred upon her for conquering sin on every side, who merited to conceive and bear him of whom it is known that he had no sin? This Virgin excepted, then, if we could gather together all those holy men and women while they lived here and ask them whether they were without sin, what do we think they would have answered?... Would they not have cried out with one voice: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us? » On account of her divine maternity, Mary conquered sin on every side. Therefore also original sin.

Against Julian the Pelagian himself objecting against original sin — book IV Operis imperf. contra Julian., c. 122: « Thou dost transcribe into the devil the very Mary by the condition of birth » — the same Doctor answers: « We shall not transcribe Mary into the devil by the condition of birth, but for this reason, because that condition itself is dissolved by the grace of rebirth. » Whence Mary, as daughter of Adam according to the flesh, indeed had the obligation of contracting original sin; but, on account of the dignity of her future divine maternity, she was released from this debt « by the grace of rebirth. » St. Ambrose, in Ps. CXVIII: « To this paradise the entrance of the serpent was not opened. O most holy one, who didst outwit principalities and powers, preserved immaculate for the spouse of God! » St. Jerome, or another writer of that time who left commentaries on the Psalms under the name of the holy Doctor, explaining this passage Ps. LXXVII, 14 : And he brought them out in the cloud of the day, says of the Virgin Mary: « That cloud was not in darkness, but always in light. » Sophronius, contemporary of Jerome, Hom. in Assumpt.: Mary is « therefore immaculate, because corrupted in nothing. » St. John Chrysostom, Sermon apud Metaphrastem: « What is holier than she [Mary]? Neither prophets, nor apostles, nor martyrs, nor patriarchs, nor angels, nor thrones, nor dominations, nor seraphim, nor cherubim, nor finally anything else whatsoever among created things visible or invisible, can be found greater or more excellent. » St. Ephrem, in Orat. ad B. V.: « O Virgin Lady, Immaculate Mother of God,... more honorable than the cherubim, and beyond all comparison far more precious than the heavenly hosts! » Origen, In cap. 1 Matth.: « Of this Only-Begotten of God shall this Mother be said to be, the Virgin Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the Immaculate One, one of the One, single of the Single... A Virgin, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected by his poisonous breath. »

St. Hippolytus of Porto, in the Bibliotheca Patrum (Gallandi): « The ark of woods that could not rot was the Savior himself. For through it is signified his Tabernacle exempt from putrefaction and corruption, which generated no putrefaction of sin. » In the Letter of the presbyters and deacons of Achaia on the martyrdom of St. Andrew, in Surius, under November 30, Andrew is read to have said to Egeas the proconsul, among many other things: « Because the first man had been created from immaculate earth, it was necessary that the perfect Man be born of an Immaculate Virgin. »

Hundreds upon hundreds of other testimonies we are forced to pass over, which were gathered together especially by Passaglia, De Immaculata Deiparae semper Virginis Conceptu commentarius; by Ant. Ballerini, Sylloge monumentorum ad mysterium Concept. Imm. Virginis Deiparae illustrandum; by Em. Card. Gousset, La croyance de l'Eglise touchant l'Immaculée Conception de la B. Vierge Marie.

4° It is proved by reason. Since the blessed Virgin, as propagated seminally from Adam, in whom all sinned, had the debt of contracting original sin, from which she was not preserved except « in view of the merits of Christ Jesus the Savior of the human race, » she can be proved fit to be endowed with this singular privilege on no other theological ground than the ground of congruity. This argument is most valid, if it is demonstrated that the contrary would not have beseemed either the three divine persons considered singly, or the Mother of God herself.

But that it is so is easily demonstrated.

It did not beseem the Father. By force of the eternal decree by which the future incarnation of the Word was ordained, the Father chose the woman who would temporally generate, according to human nature, him whom he himself generates eternally according to divine nature; so that, by the dispensation of the sacrament hidden from eternity in God, Ephes., III, 9, the same person might become the Son common to God the Father and to Mary. Yet God the Father, whose nature is holiness, could not admit to such partnership a creature whom he would not have willed holy — if not by essence, at least by grace and privilege, and in a higher degree than a creature is capable of: and this holiness necessarily includes immunity, not only from every actual sin, but also from the original stain. Therefore.

It did not beseem the Son. The divine Word is not truly made man unless he takes true human flesh, that is, flesh drawing its origin from Adam and communicated to him by his Mother, although the mode of this communication was singular and exceeded the common laws of human generation. Whence St. Bernard, in accord with Augustine and the other Fathers, does not hesitate to affirm, Hom. 4 super Missus est, n. 4, that the Holy Spirit, that he might form the body for the Son of God, « made of the little portion of the body of the same [Mary], and of the substance of the remainder of the mass, a tabernacle. » Yet, since the Son of God made man did not cease to be the splendor of glory and the figure of the substance of the Father, Hebr., I, 3, and although he had come to redeem sinners, it behooved him to be separate from sinners, ibid., VII, 26; with a holiness essentially inhering in the Godhead, it would have been unseemly and shameful for him if the flesh from which he took his own flesh had been previously defiled with the original stain. Therefore, as is said in the bull of definition, « it altogether beseemed that, as the Only-Begotten had a Father in heaven whom the seraphim extol as thrice Holy, so he should have a Mother who never lacked the splendor of holiness. »

It did not beseem the Holy Spirit. Through the divine incarnation Mary was truly made the spouse of the Holy Spirit. For the angel said to her, Luc., I, 35 : The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. « Which is to say, says St. Bernard, ibid.: Because thou shalt conceive not of man, but of the Holy Ghost. » Yet it is unbelievable that the Holy Spirit could have chosen and united to himself as spouse a woman not wholly and always unsullied, one who would not have been altogether innocent and holy. Therefore. And thus are verified these words dictated by the Holy Spirit and applied by the Church to the blessed Mother of God, Cantic., IV, 7 : Thou art all fair, my love, and there is not a spot in thee.

These three arguments are thus set forth summarily by St. Anselm, de Conceptu virginali, c. 18: « It was fitting that that Virgin shine with that purity greater than which cannot be understood under God, to whom God the Father disposed to give his only Son, whom he begot equal to himself from his own heart and loved as himself, so that naturally he would be one and the same, the common Son of God the Father and the Virgin; and whom the Son himself chose to make substantially his Mother; and of whom the Holy Spirit willed and was about to operate that that be conceived and born of which he himself proceeds. »

It did not beseem the Mother of God herself. The future mother of the Redeemer had been elected from eternity as, for her part, the repairer of the human race, who therefore was to crush the serpent's head, Gen., III, 15, whereby full victory over the devil is promised to her. « To whom has this victory been reserved, if not to Mary? » says St. Bernard, Hom. 2 super Missus est, n. 4. Yet Mary certainly would not have crushed the serpent's head, nor won full victory over him, if the serpent had held her under his power for even one instant, at least through original sin, and could boast that, though afterward conquered by her, he had nonetheless been her first conqueror: which would evidently have obscured her glory no less than her sanctity. Therefore. Whence the holy Fathers constantly oppose Mary, as the second Eve, to the former Eve, because in her place she was made the mother of the living through grace, whereas the former Eve had been created innocent and immaculate. Therefore supreme fitness required that the new Eve likewise be conceived innocent and immaculate.